Will Tax Protestor Standoff Lead To Another Ruby Ridge?

[RandFan]

Actually, I am not.

Yes, you are.

You are looking for a black or white answer and there is none. Each issue must be judged by each individual on its merits and the individual must come to their own conclusion on what is moral or just because they are the one that has to live with their decision and action.

Be this as it may it doesn't address the issue at hand.

So what? Even if this is true, what does it matter to the discussion. You think that there must be a concensus?

No. Not my point. Not my argument.

If there were, there would be no need for violent or non-violent civil disobedience, rebellions or civil wars.

Entirely irrelevant to the point.

Does it matter that a single murderer thinks it is just to kill others? What about the other 99.9999999% of the people, don't you think they get a say if they choose?

Now you are making my argument. This is not counter to my position. This is not counter to the answer that I gave you in your original question nor is it counter to any of my arguments.

Legal:
Speak out.
March/Protest.
Seek redress, appeal to political leaders, litigate.

Illegal but given some deference by the courts.
Comit classic civil disobedience.

Illegal:
Sedition.
Treason.
Armed rebellion.
Revolt.

Be prepared to face the consequences for illegal activity. Illegal activity is not protected under the constitution (see Jefferson, Franklin etc. "We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately." --Franklin)

Besides, it isn't the people with the made up minds that decide the issue. It is the people who are undecided that shift the balance. Often it is a violent act that makes them take notice and examine the issues.

Again, right or wrong this has nothing to do with the point at hand. Further this is not in conflict with my position or the answer I gave to your original question.

Think about when abortion doctors were killed or clinics bombed as you so often point out. Didn't these acts backfire on the perpetrators? Didn't it make people who were staying relatively neutral in the debate take a stand.

This fits just fine with my beliefs. Nothing that I have said is counter to this fact. On the contrary this is in keeping with everything that I have said.

Go back to your original question.
Go back to my answer to you.

 

[RandFan]

And this is meaningless. The Founders and the Crown of the day are all dead and don't care. I haven't heard Queen Elizabeth II complain about the injustice of it and seeing as how Britain and the US are such close allies, I would say it has pretty much been agreed that the actions were completely just.

Lucky for us non-violent civil disobedience is the only way for change to happen. Otherwise, there may have been a rebellion and lots of people might have died.

You are missing the point, COMPLETLY. Please stick to the argument.

Please go back to your question and my answer to you. I have said over and over that violence is capable of change. I've said over and over that what is "just" is relative.

The actions of the colonists were just to the colonists and the Americans that have followed. Just and moral are relative concepts.

Are Brown's actions "just"? It doesn't matter to me or my argument.

 

[RandFan]

Actually, murder is constantly being re-examined and so is hygiene. Everytime science finds something new pertaining to them, they are re-examined. Just think, a century ago, many people thought bathing caused them to become ill.

We've come along way baby in 100 years. Sure, anything can be re-examined. Science changes stances all of the time. That fact should not lead to suicidal stupidity though. There's no need to win the Darwin award just because you think we should question germ theory.

Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out"- Richard Feynman.

Examining the efficacy of hygiene is in effect letting one's brain fall out. There is no valid reason to question germ theory. If and when you have one you let us know, ok?

I doubt there is anything that doesn't need a good examination from time to time. Especially when it affects the lives of so many, like laws do.

Have at it and enjoy. BTW, If you break the law, like Brown, don't be surprised if you find your @$$ in jail and if you point a weapon at a marshall don't be surprised if you find your @$$ in the morgue.

Are we clear?

 

[qayak]

BTW, If you break the law, like Brown, don't be surprised if you find your @$$ in jail and if you point a weapon at a marshall don't be surprised if you find your @$$ in the morgue.

Lots of people break laws far worse and never go to jail. Lots of people steal millions and never go to jail. They will make an example of Brown just to keep the rest of the sheep in line.

Are we clear?

Yes, mommy!

 

[RandFan]

Lots of people break laws far worse and never go to jail. Lots of people steal millions and never go to jail.

This is a logical fallacy. It's called Tu Quoque. Most of us learn when we are children why this is wrong.

qayak, that others break the law and get away with it or get a slap on the wrist doesn't make it ok for you to break the law.

They will make an example of Brown just to keep the rest of the sheep in line.

Yes, just as they made an example of many other criminals.

Here's a clue, just because OJ Simpson got away with murder doesn't mean we should stop prosecuting murderers. You know, I don't think you are getting this.

Yes, mommy!

Somehow I doubt that we are clear...

 

[qayak]

You are missing the point, COMPLETLY. Please stick to the argument.

Please go back to your question and my answer to you. I have said over and over that violence is capable of change. I've said over and over that what is "just" is relative.

The actions of the colonists were just to the colonists and the Americans that have followed. Just and moral are relative concepts.

Are Brown's actions "just"? It doesn't matter to me or my argument.

Didn't you just answer your own question and haven't I answered it several times myself? It depends on your point of view. The "rightness" of an action is decided by the victor at a later date.

If the rebellion had of been crushed and the Founding Fathers instead known as "those tax evading criminals," wouldn't that be just as right? Whatever the outcome is, it will be justified later.

Brown and the government have two different views. Either one can be justified. The problem for Brown is not his position, it is that it opposes that of the government. If he wishes to win he will have to defeat them and he will have to do it with violence as that is how governments respond to dissent. Hussein did it all the time.

 

[qayak]

This is a logical fallacy. It's called Tu Quoque. Most of us learn when we are children why this is wrong.

qayak, that others break the law and get away with it or get a slap on the wrist doesn't make it ok for you to break the law.

It isn't a fallacy because that wasn't my argument. I never said that it was okay to break a law because others did. I disagreed that because one breaks a law, one will go to jail.

You need to do a better job keeping the discussion straight.

Here's a clue, just because OJ Simpson got away with murder doesn't mean we should stop prosecuting murderers. You know, I don't think you are getting this.

You are arguing a point of your own making.

Somehow I doubt that we are clear...

Yes, you will have to do a better job of understanding what is being said.

 

[qayak]

Be prepared to face the consequences for illegal activity. Illegal activity is not protected under the constitution (see Jefferson, Franklin etc. "We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately." --Franklin)

How about that little clause about bearing arms against an unjust government? Illegal acts ARE guaranteed in the Constitution and the Founders were very clear that the reason was simply that EVERY government became corrupt and oppressive because that is the nature of government.

This fits just fine with my beliefs. Nothing that I have said is counter to this fact. On the contrary this is in keeping with everything that I have said.

Then I would have to ask why you keep throwing the bombing of abortion clinics and the killing of doctors in my face? I understand that it is your red herring style of debate but then to turn around when I make a point and say it is in keeping with your argument, is rather hypocritical. I guess you support the bombing og abortion clinics and killing of doctors, like you have accused me, then.

 

[RandFan]

Didn't you just answer your own question and haven't I answered it several times myself?

I've given the same answer half a dozen times at least. In the end it just doesn't matter.

The problem for Brown is not his position...

I can't agree. This presuposes that all positions are equal. They are not. Brown's position serves Brown. It doesn't serve society and it doesn't acknowledge the social capital necassary to get where he has gotten.

Without public support and fighting only for his own greed Brown is reduced to a pathetic loser. Brown holds no moral high ground. He has nothing to offer society or anyone else with the exception of those who also want to reap the benifits of society without giving back.

If he wishes to win he will have to defeat them and he will have to do it with violence as that is how governments respond to dissent. Hussein did it all the time.

There are two main reasons why this is silly and irrelevant.

1. Iraq was not a democracy and Iraq was not built on a foundation of personal freedom.
2. People are unlikely to join Brown's cause because it is self serving and counter to the needs and goals of society.

Again, Brown has nothing with which to mount a campaign. He doesn't have popular support the way Ghandi, Trotsky, Castro, Mao or Che Guevera did. So, in the end he is a sad and little man with only his greed and stupidity to guide him. In short he is a fine potential candidate for the Darwin awards.

For one to make a difference one must be able to effectively appeal to the government or the people or both. Brown, effectively, can do neither because his cause is only self serving.

 

[RandFan]

You need to do a better job keeping the discussion straight.

?

You said:

Lots of people break laws far worse and never go to jail. Lots of people steal millions and never go to jail.

What point are you trying to make then? If it is not Tu Quoque then it is a meaninless point.

Yes, you will have to do a better job of understanding what is being said.

No, you are going to have to do a damn better job of communicating.

 

[RandFan]

How about that little clause about bearing arms against an unjust government?

What about it? I seriously don't think you understand the point of it.

Illegal acts ARE guaranteed in the Constitution...

Really? Well, I can't wait to see this. Evidence?

...and the Founders were very clear that the reason was simply that EVERY government became corrupt and oppressive because that is the nature of government.

I really don't think you have a clue. Sedition is punishable by law in the United States. If you were correct it wouldn't be.

In any event, you can save yourself some time. Jefferson's quote about the blood of tyrants isn't in the constitution it was in a letter to William Stephens Smith.

Then I would have to ask why you keep throwing the bombing of abortion clinics and the killing of doctors in my face?

I bring up abortion clinic bombers to illustrate why absurd points of view don't require respect.

I understand that it is your red herring style of debate but then to turn around when I make a point and say it is in keeping with your argument, is rather hypocritical.

Nothing red herring about it. Nothing hypocritical about it.

• Disagreeing with the government is not reason to be respected.
• Committing violence against the government is not a reason to suspect that a cause is of merit.

You don't get that. You argue again and again that Brown should be respected because he is taking a position against the government.

NO! That's BS. It's just as much BS as respecting abortion clinic bombers. That's an appropriate analogy to illustrate the silliness of your proposition.

I guess you support the bombing og abortion clinics and killing of doctors, like you have accused me, then.

No, again, that is BS. I don't care who you support or don't support. You have already said you don't agree with Brown. I take you at your word. In the end I don't care.

Like abortion clinic bombers, Brown doesn't deserve respect just because he is taking a contrary position to the United States government.

Like ALF, Brown doesn't deserve respect just because he is taking a contrary position to the United States government.

I only have three points.

Disagreeing with the government is not reason to be respected.
Anyone who disagrees with the government has many options at their disposal to fight for their cause.
Brown is an a-hole.

 

[qayak]

? What point are you trying to make then? If it is not Tu Quoque then it is a meaninless point.

No, you are going to have to do a damn better job of communicating.

Sometimes I really have to question your thinking. If it is Tu Quoque then it is a fallacy and therefore a meaningless point.

The point was, you said that if I break the law I should expect to go to prison. I simply stated that this was a fallacy as many people break the law and don't go to prison.

Thanks for coming out.

 

[qayak]

Really? Well, I can't wait to see this. Evidence?

The right to bear arms against an unjust government would also be known as an armed rebellion which is against the law. As the right is guaranteed in the Constitution, the Constitution says that it is okay to break the law at times.

In any event, you can save yourself some time. Jefferson's quote about the blood of tyrants isn't in the constitution it was in a letter to William Stephens Smith.

No kidding, Dick Tracy! How much of the discussion that went into the drafting of the Constitution, made it in?

Disagreeing with the government is not reason to be respected.

Neither is agreeing with it.

Anyone who disagrees with the government has many options at their disposal to fight for their cause.

Yes.

Brown is an a-hole.

Never met the man, wouldn't know.

 

[qayak]

I can't agree. This presuposes that all positions are equal.

No it doesn't.

They are not. Brown's position serves Brown. It doesn't serve society and it doesn't acknowledge the social capital necassary to get where he has gotten.

Yeah, let's pretend people don't vote for the party that most benefits THEM. Let's pretend that the trillions of dollars spent on the military allowed Brown to make a good living.

Without public support and fighting only for his own greed Brown is reduced to a pathetic loser. Brown holds no moral high ground. He has nothing to offer society or anyone else with the exception of those who also want to reap the benifits of society without giving back.

Income tax is the moral high ground. That's a new one.

There are two main reasons why this is silly and irrelevant.

1. Iraq was not a democracy and Iraq was not built on a foundation of personal freedom.

1. 
   
   Not irrelevent at all. Both Hussein and the US government (all others as well) put down revolts brutally. The US fights religious fundamentalists as much on their own soil as Hussein did on his. The only difference is the name of the religion they fight.
   
   Do you really think the US is based on personal freedom? If so, why can't anyone opt out of the system?

 

[ponderingturtle]

If the act is targeted to civilians with the intent of instilling terror then it is terrorism.

9/11 Yes
Attacking troops in a non conventional fashion(say in Iraq now or in France during WWII) No.
General bombing of cities to destroy infrastructure Yes/No/Depends
ALF Yes, of course.
Boston Tea Party No, of course not.

The intent of ALF is to instill terror in the general populace. The inetent of the Boston Tea party was not.

So then you would agree that the US during world war two was a terrorist state, as it was using the destruction of cities to break the will of a nation.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Cool, we've got a point of agreement.

You are repeating a popular myth. No, this is not correct.

But did they want representation? If they got it, they would have had no effect because they did not have the population to get any real number of seats.

Of course there where exploitative laws that had nothing to do with taxes, such as the limiting of the iron industry in this country to prevent competition with proper British manufactures.

 

[Lurker]

Income tax is the moral high ground. That's a new one.

WTF? We live in a Constitutional Republic where our democratic ways bring forth laws. We do not live in a society where if you disagree with a law you get a free pass. Sorry. If you disagree with a law, work to change it. Threatening to kill law enforcement is ridiculous.

As for taxes, yes, paying your income tax accoding to the law is the high ground. Much higher than refusing to pay and threatening violence against innocent law enforcement personnel.

Do you really think the US is based on personal freedom? If so, why can't anyone opt out of the system?

Personal freedom within the confines of our laws and Constitution. Opting out of the system is not a right. If you want that right perhaps you should work to change the laws/Constituion or find somewhere else to live. If you can convince enough people to think like you, then feel free to change our laws and system. Until then, quit whining as if you deserve personal freedom to disobey laws you don't like.

Lurker

 

[qayak]

If you can convince enough people to think like you, then feel free to change our laws and system.

This isn't about me, it's about Brown. Change has to start somewhere if it is going to happen. Brown is a start, only time will tell if it goes anywhere.

Until then, quit whining as if you deserve personal freedom to disobey laws you don't like.

You must mean someone else. I have never said I deserve to be allowed to disobey the law.

Of course I know you have never disobeyed a law.

 

[Lurker]

This isn't about me, it's about Brown. Change has to start somewhere if it is going to happen. Brown is a start, only time will tell if it goes anywhere.

And if his "change" is against the law, expect him to pay the price.

You must mean someone else. I have never said I deserve to be allowed to disobey the law.

But you question whether he should be punished...

Of course I know you have never disobeyed a law.

Hmm, I have disobeyed laws plenty of times, yet I don't pull out a gun when caught or hole up in my house. You seem to respect that response while I decry it.

BTW, you sure love the use of that eyeroll icon!

Lurker

 

[robinson]

To speak to the original question, no. There isn't anything that will lead to another Ruby Ridge/Waco type of stand off. Killing children, or their mom, while she holds a child, isn't allowed anymore.

It riles up the locals, and they might retaliate.